About That Supplement …


Last week, I mentioned that The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin had filed a “supplement” to his non-existent opposition to Aaron Walker’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment in the Kimberlin v. Most of the Universe, et al. RICO Retread LOLsuit and that the court would not be considering it. Here it is.

Rather than waste bandwidth, I’ve only included the first pages of Exhibits B and C. If the Gentle Reader wants to review those cases, they can be found on Google Scholar.

The certificate of service states that the supplement was served by mail on the defendantsĀ on the 9th. The envelope Aaron received is postmarked the 11th.

25 thoughts on “About That Supplement …

  1. i am not going to correct Brett’s errors, in the hopes that he might repeat them.

    I will simply say this: senility is so hard to watch.

  2. Although the motion is moot, is there any way to draw the courts attention to the fact that once again the tiny pedo lied about the date of service?

    • Which diddler? Bunny Boy “The child porn wasn’t that bad” Osbourne, William “I’d have sex with a 14 year old” Ferguson, or the Adjudicated Pedophile Brett Kimberlin? Course you might have meant the fat man in WI how loves to talk about cub scouts being raped. Man, what a team!

  3. One of the interesting items I did find in that reading is how the defendant appears to be potentially helping the plaintiff (in a related case).

    • Care to elaborate? Just a reminder that the plaintiff here is Kimberlin and the defendant in question is Aaron Walker. I’m pretty darn certain Aaron wouldn’t piss on BK if he were on fire, so can’t quite figure how you’d get “helping” out of that pathetic excuse for a brief.

      • Not sure how much to put out there, but “in a related case” was the (poorly placed?) cryptic key as to the parties in the case to be referenced.

        Part of the problems in reading anything put out by certain people, is whether the case law presented is a) truly relevant, b) truly applicable, and c) cited accurately. If they are (and I’m sure with the background Mr. Worthing has he would pick up on much more than I would ever notice); I found section 5 to be an interesting read.

  4. “[A Maryland Court] held that co-conspirators are ‘agents’ under Maryland law and therefore responsible for the actions of their con-defendants.”

    Brett Kimberlin made quite the Freudian slip here. He is, of course, the con plaintiff!

    Nor, is there such a thing as a “co-conspirator.” A “conspiracy” is populated by two or more “conspirators,” not “co-conspirators.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s